Talk:Albanian revolt of 1432–1436

Gjirokastër and Vlorë?

• Article: * In 1437 Teodor Korona Muzaka revolted in the region of Berat and peasant rebels were active in the regions of Gjirokastër and Vlorë.
• Source: * In 1437 another revolt broke out in the district of Berat, led by Theodor Korona Muzaka.

I haven't noticed that source mention Gjirokastër and Vlorë. Quote which supports Gjirokastër and Vlorë assertion is requested.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to copy 3 paragraphs, so you could buy the book, AGF and revert yourself as it appears in the previous citation too (Islami p.338: Situata politike në Shqipëri mbeti shpërthyese edhe gjatë gjysmës së dytë të viteve 30 të shek. XV, kur luftimet kishin pushuar. Në viset e Gjirokastrës e të Vlorës si dhe në zonat pranë qendrave ushtarake të pushtuara etj., qëndresa antiosmane vazhdoi në forma të tjera. etc.) In the regions of Gjirokastër and Vlorë etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to copy 3 paragraphs. Only quote from the page 65 of the work of Frasheri which supports the assertion about peasant rebels in the regions of Gjirokastër and Vlorë in 1437.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As it isn't a freshman's paper I would have to copy ~3 paragraphs, so I'll add Islami as a second citation if you're so keen on the issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Please reply to my question and provide a quote from Frasheri's work that you used to support the above mentioned assertion. One sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)I gave you my explanation so either stop the WP:FORUM and add Islami too if you're truly concerned or WP:STICK. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please present a quote from Islami's work which supports above mentioned assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

[1]?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the complete paragraph on the internet.

• Islami source: "Situata politike në Shqipëri mbeti shpërthyese edhe gjatë gjysmës së dytë të viteve 30 të shek. XV, kur luftimet kishin pushuar. Në viset e Gjirokastrës e të Vlorës si dhe në zonat pranë qendrave ushtarake të pushtuara etj., qëndresa antiosmane vazhdoi në forma të tjera. Për të vendosur në to plotësisht pushtetin e vet, sulltan Murati II iu drejtua për ndihmë Venedikut. Kështu, në tetor të vitit 1436, një përfaqësues i sulltanit i kërkoi Republikës së Venedikut të ndëshkonte ata shqiptarë që, nga zotërimet e saj të Shkodrës, Pargës etj., sulmonin forcat osmane, si dhe të mos lejohej në to strehimi i dezertorëve të ushtrisë osmane."
• Machine translaton: "The political situation in Albania remained volatile during the second half of the 30 years of the century. XV, when the fighting had ceased. In Gjirokastra areas of Vlora and in areas near military centers occupied etc.., Anti-ottoman resistance continued in other forms.To decide to fully own power, Sultan Murad II was approached Venice. Thus, in October 1436, a representative of the Sultan asked the Venetian Republic to punish those Albanians who, from its dominions Shkodra, Pargës etc.., Attacked Ottoman forces, and not allowed to harboring army deserters Ottoman."

Is there any other quote from Islami's work which refers to the revolt of peasants of region Gjirokastra and Vlore in 1437 (which is after October 1436)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't use quotes from languages which you don't speak as Islami isn't making a sequential statement, but if that was the issue you could correct it with a minor edit.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The source (Islami 2002) in p. 338 (last paragraph) says: Situata politike në Shqipëri mbeti shpërthyese edhe gjatë gjysmës së dytë të viteve 30 të shek. XV, kur luftimet kishin pushuar. Në viset e Gjirokastrës e të Vlorës si dhe në zonat pranë qendrave ushtarake të pushtuara etj., qëndresa antiosmane vazhdoi në forma të tjera.. What user:Zjarrirrethues claims is alright. However the timing is not specifically 1437 but for the second part of fourth decade ("second half of the 30'" says the source specifically) , after the "main fights were over" so it means from 1436 and later on. Aigest (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• No. The above mentioned text was not supported with any of the two presented sources. None of the two sources contain any information about peasant rebels who were active in the regions of Gjirokastër and Vlorë in 1437. Frasheri, who was initially used as source, did not even mention it. Islami did mention it but within events before October 1436, in context which was already explained in the previous sentence.
• With this edits ZjarriRrethues tries to avoid removal of unreferenced wp:or. Until reliable source for 1437 activities of rebels in region of Gjirokaster and Vlore are presented this assertion should be removed. With latest edits of ZjarriRrethues the chronology of the events is distorted.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• The main battles ended in autumn 1436. Rebels were active in those regions afterwards (after autumn 1436). Do the math yourself. That edit is ok. Aigest (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't agree. The source explains that after main battles (mid 1436) when Ottomans crushed the revolt "situation in Albania remained volatile". It mentions resistance in Gjirokastra areas of Vlora and in areas near military centers which continued in other forms. Then in October 1436 representatives of Mehmed II asked the Venetians to outlaw activities of rebels who used Venetian territories to launch raids into Ottoman territory. I don't intend to continue arguing about this issue because it is not the major issue of this article, although it is obvious that two presented sources do not support assertion about "peasant rebels who were active in the regions of Gjirokastër and Vlorë in 1437". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• "In order to stabilize Ottoman authority, Murat II appointed native Albanians like Jakub Muzaka and Skanderbeg in high positions of the sanjak of Albania." This sentence should go to the end of paragraph, after events from October 1436 and Muzaka rebelion of 1437 because Jakub was appointed as sanjakbey in 1437 and Skanderbeg as subashi in 1438.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

widespread civilian massacres

Article says: Turahan's forces eventually subdued the revolt and marched through Albania, committing widespread civilian massacres.

The source used to support this assertion, Fine p.535, does not mention civilians, if I am not wrong. Is there a mistake in source interpretation?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If the quote the campaign was savage, marked by massacres and the erection of pyramids of skulls. is treated by you as a misinterpretation then there's an issue of English language comprehension (which has already been pointed out by others), since it's obvious that the savageness of the campaign doesn't refer to combatants but civilians. Don't cram this talkpage (as many other talkpages) too with inane queries and pointy tags and if you think that you have anything positive to contribute be bold (but don't disrupt the prose and the layout). Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty safe to assume that when Fine used the word massacre he meant that civilians were killed. It would seem pointless to say that combattants were massacred when one could more accurately describe it as a battle or military conflict.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. The combatants, of course, can be massacred. Skull tower.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they can, but in this case they were referring to civilians.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Rumors that sultan died and other

• Fine emphasizes that Andrew Thopia started the rebelion when he heard rumors that sultan died. I think that it would be good to add that important information to the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• In northern Albania Nicholas Dukagjini captured territories of the pre-Ottoman Principality of Dukagjini and besieged Dagnum successfully. - Is there a source which supports this assertion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Dukagjini took advantage of the rebellion to return to his family's former lands; in taking them over, he submitted to Venetian suzerainty. Btw that quote is on the same page as the quote of the previous section you started. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The source do not mention the Principality of Dukagjini.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

His family's former lands= Dukagjini family domains = Principality of Dukagjini. Insisting that the precise word is needed for this kind of quoting is classic wikilawyering so WP:STICK.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. What you did is WP:OR, precisely WP:ORIGINALSYN. The article about (pre-Ottoman?) Principality of Dukagjini (if it ever existed) says that it was created in 1437, which is after this revolt. Before his death in 1409 father of Nicholas Dukagjini was Venetian pronoier who controlled two villages near Lezha. His son Nicholas also was Venetian pronoier and later vassal of Zaharias. Dagnum did not belong to family of Nicholas Dukagjin. It was under control of Balšići until 1385 and then Koja and Leke Zaharia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(unintend)In northern Albania Nicholas Dukagjini captured territories of the pre-Ottoman Principality of Dukagjini and besieged Dagnum successfully doesn't imply that Dagnum was part of their territories. Your English language comprehension skills aren't up to the task of evaluating the content of sources, which have already been reviewed on DYK, and I won't enter any general debates (WP:FORUM) on the Dukagjini family.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I underlined two villages. Two villages controlled by Venetian pronoier were not principality, nor source supports such assertion.

Using speculations of a user's language skills to question their arguments is not very productive and the discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• The result of this conflict presented in the infobox ('Restoration of Ottoman rule') does not follow the instructions of the Template:Infobox_military_conflict which says: The "result" parameter "may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The same page explains that those standard terms should be used instead "instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The lands of the Dukagjini family aren't exclusively the lands of his father, which as an issue is another example of your English language comprehension issues that hinder your use of the sources as you can't use them without employing the exact same wording as the source and that results in non-sequential and substandard prose as well as a limited interpretation. Another example of your limited comprehension is your assumption and consequent comment regarding Dagnum, which the selected wording doesn't imply as part of the Dukagjini territories but you interpreted as that. The infobox doesn't offer any instructions as you label and understand the term, it's not an official guideline and this particular parameter is an optional one that can be used in many ways. This was a multilayered conflict with many outcomes that don't fall under standard categories. Btw I won't contribute anything else to your WP:FORUM issues, as a means to decrease the likelihood of this talkpage becoming another forum-like issues repository. If you want to have a general discussion on any of the topics you've mentioned, start discussions on those talkpages. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• This article is the third article you created after I first started writing the draft in my userspace.
• I created the draft of this article on 24 July 2012. A week later you created this article.
• After first two times you did it I explained to you that I consider it incivility and politely asked you not to do it anymore. Unfortunately I was right when I wrote: "If nobody stops you I am afraid it will not be the last one".
• This third article was the first you announced on my talk page inviting me to "feel free to add anything that I may neglect to include".
• Now you write unnecessary harsh comments just because I pointed to a couple of obvious source misinterpretations I easily found at the very beginning of my review of this article.

This is my last comment on this talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albanian Revolt of 1432–1436/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 12:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'll be doing this review in the next couple of days.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There is a tendency throughout to introduce Turkish or Albanian terms without proper explanation, please go through and make sure all these are fixed. Also shorten lengthy sentences throughout, in particular, your use of the semi-colon is not justified. Once you've been through it yourself, I am happy to do a tidy up of the prose if necessary * Timar must be explained when it is introduced in the lead. * Suggest you re-write this sentence "Protracted sieges like that of Gjirokastër, capital of the sanjak, gave the Ottoman army time to assemble large forces from other parts of the empire and to subdue the main revolt, whose defeat was followed by massacres, by the end of 1436." It is segmented and would probably be better split into two sentences, one about the defeat and one about the massacres. * Suggest some simplification here "As Ottoman rule in the Balkans solidified, further attempts at centralization and moves to replace local timar holders with Ottoman landowners resumed." * Suggest wikilinking Cadastre from "cadastral survey" * Suggest "Gradually in the late 14th and early 15th century the Ottoman empire expanded into the region of modern-day Albania, defeated the local principalities and formed the Sanjak of Albania." * Not sure why you haven't used Timariot rather than spahis * "new taxes were altered", I assume you mean "imposed"? * you need to explain Avarız. * suggest you explain what proportion of average income these taxes represented, as mentioning the amounts without that information is almost pointless * you need to explain Devşirme * Sanjak needs to be consistently capitalised throughout * What were the Venetian territories that were under threat? Wikilink if possible as well. * A war galley? explain and wikilink * Subaşi must be explained and should be wikilinked * explain that Ibrahim of Karaman was in Anatolia * Explain that Sigismund was the Holy Roman Emperor * Shkodër is overlinked in the Aftermath section * wikilink Mehmed II * the use of status quo ante is unclear, I assume you mean they returned to the same policies of centralisation etc?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A few of the above issues also relate to here
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Suggestion: use the language field in the references to indicate where they are not in English.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	* The caption for the pic of Sigismund should show HRE in full.
	7. Overall assessment.	Definitely on track. On hold for a week so you can address the review points. I have edited the prose, done a bit of formatting, and added a simple explanation of "spahi". Feel free to modify if you believe I have changed the meaning. Promoted to GA, well done. I will make some separate suggestions on the talk page regarding a couple of improvements you might want to consider if you intend nominating this article for ACR or FA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ottoman terms were explained

• I used spahi instead of timariot as that would imply that the landowners were already timar holders (timariots) prior to the land distribution
• Ibrahim's location added, Venetian territories changed to Venetian territories in the region, to which the map acts supplementarily, while there are some relevant details on the aftermath section
• Instead of capitalising sanjak (province) I lowercased it as we wouldn't use the Province is located ... in English
• Wikilinked war galley, Mehmed II, cadastre and reduced Shkodër links
• Changed status quo ante to status quo ante bellum (yes, I was referring to the centralization policies)
• I don't know if there are any exact statistics on the annual income of Ottoman Albania in the early 15th century, but Under the previous taxation code, farmers were required to pay a tenth of their seasonal agricultural output, 1 ducat and 4 groshe (two-ninths of a ducat) to their lords. seems quite concise in terms of providing a better understanding regarding the tax system of the empire and specifically its treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims. The sea. agr. output of a farmer (the overwhelming majority of the population) would be ~12.2 ducats, but I don't know what part of that was "monetized" and what part remained "nonmonetary consumption capacity".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept all that. I have made a few changes to the prose per above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that you revise the map in the infobox. The colour contrast isn't great and it is probably too small a scale to be useful in the infobox. A larger, more contrasted version of the map in the body of the article would enhance the article quite a bit. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)